New Staff Blog: Run Away!

[satori01]

I hate Morale rules. Thinking about villains motivation and commitment has always been a large part of prep to me. Keeping up on the "feel"of an encounter and a game session are key to a fun game.

Also many players will never:


1) Surrender
2) Let monsters flee
3) Take prisoners


If the Dread Pirate Robert's takes no prisoners, why Yield?


Morale rules never eliminate the above traits, because people see loot, xp, or something that insulted or injured them slipping away, and that will not stand in their minds.

 

[Blackwarder]

I hate Morale rules. Thinking about villains motivation and commitment has always been a large part of prep to me. Keeping up on the "feel"of an encounter and a game session are key to a fun game.

Also my players will never:


1) Surrender
2) Let monsters flee
3) Take prisoners


If the Dread Pirate Robert's takes no prisoners, why Yield?


Morale rules never eliminate the above traits, because people see loot, xp, or something that insulted or injured them slipping away, and that will not stand in their minds.

Fixed it for you

Warder

 

[Incenjucar]

The statement was accurate. Many players will not accept defeat and will not leave a monster breathing. It is not at all a unique or unusual circumstance.

 

[BobTheNob]

I wnt morale rules, just not sure I want it just as a dice roll. Id prefer something a little more what Kamikaze suggests in the form of simple Q&A style behavior to back up dice rolls (i.e. varying triggers for when rolls are made based on race) and that a certain number of failed rolls are required before break.

 

[Weregrognard]

Example from last Friday (2e rules):

1. The PCs travelling through a mountain pass when they are ambushed by bow-wielding bandits. Negotiations fail...miserably.

2. 1st round: The PCs are pelted with arrows. A PC Dwarf cleric's spell (wall of fog) is cancelled when he takes three arrows. Meanwhile, a henchman (mage) goes down!

3. 2nd round: PCs take cover and return fire. A PC cleric/mage casts a cure spell on his henchman (who went down previously). The henchman makes a morale check (bonus for cure spell), and holds fast! The dwarf cleric casts hold person, paralyzing three bandits plus the leader. A PC takes advantage and kills the leader with a well-placed arrow. The bandits make morale checks (for the magic spell and death of their leader): 3/4 of them fail!

4. The bandits are routed!


I love morale!

The rules should be optional, but IMHO they should be in the 5e core.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

To me focused fire just makes sense, in any version of D&D. I'd wonder about a combat system that somehow didn't encourage it. Is there some well-known tendency in 4e that encourages it beyond all sensibility or something? I didn't notice anything like that while running or playing 4e, but its been a while.

One other difference I can think of between pre-4E and 4E is monster durability. In previous editions, moreso re-3E, monsters were much less durable. For example, in one scenario three PCs focus fire on one creature in a band and then the Wizards casts Fireball on three creatures including the one targeted by the focus-firing PCs or the three PCs could spread their fire then the Wizard casts Fireball. Pre-4E the focus-fire group would likely only defeat one creature, while the spreading fire group could more likely defeat three. In 4E the focus-fire group defeats one creature, but the spreading fire group doesn't defeat any. This is an example and would not hold in all examples of course.

Maybe have 6 or 8 levels of morale - fanatic, stout, steady, average, shaky, cowardly, terrified (I'll leave it to others to come up with better terms) - described briefly in the DMG along with what they might represent in game terms*; then put a line in each monster write-up something like: Morale: steady in lair, average elsewhere; except fanatic when in sight of commander.

Maybe if you cut it down to three-ish levels. To me 6-8 levels sounds as convoluted as the color-coded threat levels used by the US.

 

[Andor]

But I am really drawing a hard line on the notion of free will. I hate nonmagical fear effects.

The thing is that the morale rules are not representing the exercise of free will. A failed morale check does not lead to an organized fighting retreat, it is panic that leads to a rout.

Most of the die rolls in the game represent points where free will is not sufficient, or may be in question. You might will yourself to climb the wall, but do you have the strength and skill? You might want to not die to a phantasmal killer, but is your will strong enough to defeat the spell? You might not want to run from the fight, but is your courage sufficient to stand your ground while 8,000 pounds of heavy cavalry squad is charging towards you and the ground shakes under your feet with the thunder of their coming?

If the kobolds decide to make an organized retreat, then no rolls are called for, free will was intelligently exercised. If the goblins were sniggering about how great the ambush they are about to spring will be when suddenly their leader explodes into gore as the rogue sneak attacks him, then the little cowards need to roll morale to see if they get to choose their course of action or if blind panic takes them. If free will was supreme, no one would ever panic, it's never the best course of action, panic is a triumph of primitive instincts and adrenaline over higher brain functions and rationality.

 

[KidSnide]

Morale should always be a guideline. If a DM thinks they understand what's going on inside the minds of the monsters better than the morale die says (or is allowed to say), the DM's decision is always going to overrule the morale die. It's a rule like "orcs are found in communities of 20-100", not a rule like "orcs have a +6 initiative modifier."

But that having been said, morale is useful for several purposes:
* It accelerates the end of encounters where the outcome is no longer in doubt.
* It provides an alternate method for the PCs to defeat the monsters (other than killing them all).
* It provides an objective and predictable method for players to predict the reliability of their henchmen and followers.
* It feels more realistic that monsters don't always fight to the death.

If you run a game where you have an unusually tight handle on how your monster/NPCs behave, it may never be useful. For other DMs, it may be too much of a pain to track. But either way, for a game that's suppose to be providing a toolbox, morale should be one of the tools in the case.

-KS

 

[howandwhy99]

Fear effects aren't magical compulsions, but they can result in characters taking certain actions.

What if we just treat the results of Morale checks as Fight or Flight (or Freeze) mechanics? Staying cool headed and making decisions under duress can be for the Players. NPCs can follow commands or be overcome and act as the results above show. Loyalty is then about them following due to affinity (or whatever factors you want) or leaving. That also means Morale checks.

 

[3catcircus]

I've considered adopting the (sadly OOP) Twilight:2013's Coolness Under Fire (CUF) rules into my D&D game.

It takes into account multiple different things that can cause someone to flee a fight - wounds piling up, seeing your buddies killed, enemy is using terrifying weapons like flamethrowers or automatic weapons, etc. It also accounts for conditions that can turn a loss into a win - taking out bad guys, leaders rallying the troops, etc.